AB 764 amends Section 3801 of the California Fish and Game Code to include the mute swan (Cygnus olor) among birds that may be taken or possessed as nongame birds. The amendment removes certain regulatory barriers that previously constrained handling of mute swans and triggers a set of administrative actions for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The bill matters for anyone who manages wetland habitats, responds to bird damage complaints, or enforces wildlife laws. It creates a temporary regulatory regime intended to facilitate control of an introduced waterfowl species while generating administrative data that the department can use to evaluate enforcement and management needs.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 764 inserts the mute swan into the list of nongame birds in Fish and Game Code Section 3801 and pairs that change with two administrative instructions for the Department of Fish and Wildlife: encourage reporting when a person takes or possesses a mute swan, and collect information about enforcement actions tied to those incidents.
Who It Affects
Private landowners and lessees with mute swan presence, state wildlife enforcement personnel, municipal animal control and wetland managers, and anyone who previously needed a hunting license or depredation permit to remove swans from property.
Why It Matters
The move lowers legal friction for on-the-ground removal or possession of mute swans — a nonnative, often-conflict species — while promising data that could shape future policy. The change is temporary, signaling a trial period rather than a permanent policy shift.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 764 modifies the state's long list of nongame birds to add the mute swan, a waterfowl species that is generally not native to California and is widely managed elsewhere because of its impacts on wetlands and other waterbirds. By putting mute swans on the nongame list, the bill aligns state law to allow taking or possessing these birds under the same baseline rules that apply to other listed nongame species.
The bill does not create a new permitting regime; instead it relies on existing structure in Section 3801 and related licensing rules. Landowners, lessees, and their agents who are acting on land they control continue to be exempt from hunting license and depredation-permit requirements under the existing subsection (b), while other persons remain subject to license requirements under subsection (c).
AB 764 layers two administrative requirements on top of that statutory framework: it encourages—but does not require—individuals to report when they take or possess a mute swan, and it directs the Department of Fish and Wildlife to collect information about enforcement actions that department personnel take in connection with mute swan incidents.Practical implementation will be an administrative exercise. The department must decide what data fields to capture, how to tag enforcement actions as 'associated with' mute swan take or possession, and how to integrate that tracking with existing incident and citation databases.
The bill includes a built-in sunset for the mute swan provision, so the state is treating this as a temporary policy posture intended to produce information and give managers a window to address mute swan impacts without immediately changing long-term legal status.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute amendment specifically names the mute swan (Cygnus olor) in Section 3801(a)(3) as a nongame bird that may be taken or possessed.
The bill instructs the Department of Fish and Wildlife to collect information about enforcement actions taken by department personnel that are associated with the take or possession of mute swans.
Reporting by people who take or possess mute swans is encouraged by the bill but is explicitly non‑mandatory.
Section 3801(b) continues to exempt landowners, lessees, and their agents (with written authority) from hunting license or depredation permit requirements when acting on their land.
The mute swan paragraph is set to become inoperative on January 1, 2031 — the change is temporary unless further legislative action occurs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds mute swan to the list of nongame birds
The bill inserts a new numbered paragraph listing the mute swan (Cygnus olor) among species that may be taken or possessed at any time under Section 3801(a). Practically, that places mute swans on the same baseline legal footing as other listed nongame birds, removing a categorical prohibition on taking or possessing them under state law. Managers and enforcers will treat mute swans as nonprotected at the state level while the paragraph is operative.
Encouraged reporting when a person takes or possesses a mute swan
The statute asks people who take or possess a mute swan to report that action to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, but it does not create a reporting duty or penalty for failing to report. That choice reduces immediate compliance burdens on private actors while relying on voluntary cooperation to produce situational awareness for the department.
Department must collect enforcement-action information
The department is required to collect information about enforcement actions taken by department personnel that are associated with mute swan take or possession. This is an administrative mandate: DFW must design data capture, storage, and likely periodic review processes to identify such enforcement actions in its records. The provision does not specify data elements, reporting format, or timelines, leaving those implementation decisions to the agency.
Sunset of the mute swan provision
The new paragraph containing the mute swan listing becomes inoperative on January 1, 2031. The sunset creates a finite period for the altered regulatory framework to operate and for the department to gather data; it also signals that the legislature intends to revisit the policy based on results or new information before making a permanent change.
License exemptions for landowners; license required for others
The bill leaves intact the existing carveout that exempts landowners, lessees, and authorized agents from needing a hunting license or depredation permit to take nongame birds on their own property, while requiring other persons taking listed nongame birds to hold a license under Section 3007. That structure channels most on‑the‑ground removals on to property owners and their agents and preserves licensing and oversight for third‑party removers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private landowners and lessees who experience property damage from mute swans — they gain clearer legal authority to remove or possess swans on their own land without obtaining a hunting license or depredation permit, reducing regulatory friction during conflict incidents.
- Wetland and habitat managers dealing with mute swan impacts — the law removes a categorical obstacle to direct control measures and, if reporting is robust, could provide useful operational data to inform management strategies.
- The Department of Fish and Wildlife — the required data collection gives the department structured information about enforcement interactions, which can inform staffing, guidance, and potential policy recommendations before the sunset date.
- Local governments and resource agencies responding to nuisance or public‑safety complaints — clearer state-level status can simplify coordination with landowners and municipal responders when mute swans are involved.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Fish and Wildlife staff — the agency must design and implement data collection and tracking for enforcement actions tied to mute swans, which will require staff time, systems updates, and possible reallocation of enforcement resources without specified funding.
- Third-party wildlife control operators or NGOs that work off‑site — they remain subject to licensing requirements and may face operational limits compared with property owners acting directly, potentially increasing coordination costs.
- Individuals who mistakenly take protected native waterfowl — the legal distinction between nonnative mute swans and other cygnets may create enforcement complexity and the risk of inadvertent violations if species identification is unclear in the field.
- Local animal control or public works departments — the new regime could shift operational expectations and recordkeeping burdens onto local responders who coordinate with DFW on incidents involving mute swans.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 764 pits the goal of lowering legal barriers for rapid, local control of a nonnative, often‑problematic waterfowl against the need for clear, consistent protections and enforceable data collection; the law favors immediate operational flexibility and voluntary reporting now while asking the department to build the factual record that could justify either making the change permanent or restoring stricter controls after the sunset.
The statute leaves critical implementation choices to the Department of Fish and Wildlife without allocating specific data elements, deadlines, or funding. That opens multiple execution risks: DFW may capture inconsistent or incomplete enforcement information, limiting the statute’s value as an evidence base for future policy.
Because reporting by private actors is only encouraged, dataset completeness will likely skew toward incidents that trigger formal enforcement encounters, missing many removals performed by landowners.
The bill also raises legal and operational ambiguity about interactions with federal law and species protections. Although the mute swan is listed here as a nongame bird at the state level, the text does not address potential overlaps with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or other federal protections, nor does it specify how to handle mixed‑species incidents where protected native birds are present.
Finally, the sunset date reduces long‑term regulatory certainty; property owners and managers get a temporary window of relaxed barriers, but that temporariness may deter investment in longer‑term control programs and complicate coordination among jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.